Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers
draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-02-21
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-13
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2017-02-10
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-01
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-02-01
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-12-19
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-12-19
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Minor editorial comment: OLD: Stable address: An address that does not vary over time within the same network … [Ballot comment] Minor editorial comment: OLD: Stable address: An address that does not vary over time within the same network (as defined in [RFC7721]). NEW: Stable address: An address that does not vary over time within the same network (consistent with [RFC7721]). Justification: This is not the exact same definition. |
2016-12-15
|
16 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Sarah Banks performed the opsdir review. |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-14
|
16 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - (used to be a discuss, just not a great one;-) Is this clear enough that it is not replacing temporary addresses, and … [Ballot comment] - (used to be a discuss, just not a great one;-) Is this clear enough that it is not replacing temporary addresses, and in saying when one ought use those vs. when one ought use 7217? I'm not sure TBH, but, for me, this text reads a bit too much as "use 7217 and not temporary addresses" except for in the place where it says "For example, this document does not change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses as specified in [RFC4941],..." So my question is: does this document need more clarity as to when to use 7217 and when to use 4941? I suspect it probably does need a more clear statement about that, if we think we can reach consensus on what that ought say;-) - section 3: is it correct to say "In particular, this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs..." or do you really mean that nodes SHOULD NOT emit packets with in source addresses? IOW, do you mean that nodes SHOULD NOT respond to packets addressed to addresses using stable IIDs? I'm not clear from the text, but am fine with either though I guess that could cause a problem somewhere maybe. |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Before I ballot yes on this there is one aspect I'd like to briefly discuss... Is this clear enough that it is not … [Ballot discuss] Before I ballot yes on this there is one aspect I'd like to briefly discuss... Is this clear enough that it is not replacing temporary addresses, and in saying when one ought use those vs. when one ought use 7217? I'm not sure TBH, but, for me, this text reads a bit too much as "use 7217 and not temporary addresses" except for in the place where it says "For example, this document does not change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses as specified in [RFC4941],..." So my discuss point is: does this document need more clarity as to when to use 7217 and when to use 4941? I suspect it probably does need a more clear statement about that, if we think we can reach consensus on what that ought say;-) |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - section 3: is it correct to say "In particular, this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs..." or do you … [Ballot comment] - section 3: is it correct to say "In particular, this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs..." or do you really mean that nodes SHOULD NOT emit packets with in source addresses? IOW, do you mean that nodes SHOULD NOT respond to packets addressed to addresses using stable IIDs? I'm not clear from the text, but am fine with either though I guess that could cause a problem somewhere maybe. |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-13
|
16 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sarah Banks. |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot has been issued |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-12
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-12-05
|
16 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. |
2016-12-02
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-11-30
|
16 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2016-11-28
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-28
|
16 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-11-24
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman. |
2016-11-23
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2016-11-23
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2016-11-17
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2016-11-17
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2016-11-17
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman |
2016-11-17
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman |
2016-11-16
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15 |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "Robert M. Hinden" , ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "Robert M. Hinden" , ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, 6man-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document changes the recommended default IID generation scheme for cases where SLAAC is used to generate a stable IPv6 address. It recommends using the mechanism specified in RFC7217 in such cases, and recommends against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 Interface Identifiers. It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467, RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572, RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121. This document does not change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses as specified in RFC 4941. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Last Call Requested::External Party |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-11-14
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested::External Party from AD Evaluation::External Party |
2016-10-13
|
16 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested |
2016-10-06
|
16 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-10-06
|
16 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-09-29
|
16 | Bob Hinden | Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-15 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why … Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-15 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard This is appropriate as this document updates other standards track RFCs. Standards Track is indicated on the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document changes the recommended default Interface Identifier (IID) generation scheme for cases where Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) is used to generate a stable IPv6 address. It recommends using the mechanism specified in RFC7217 in such cases, and recommends against embedding stable link-layer addresses in IPv6 Interface Identifiers. It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467, RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572, RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121. This document does not change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary addresses as specified in RFC 4941. Working Group Summary: There is strong support for this document in the 6MAN working group. The area where there was controversy was about what the updates to the documents that define how IIDs should be created, e.g., RFC2464) for specific link types. The current draft represents the working group thinking and there is a strong consensus. Document Quality: The quality of the document is good, it has received a lot of review in the working group on the mailing list and at several 6man sessions at IETF meetings. The number of drafts that have been produced (15) is one sign of this. There are implementations of the recommendation that nodes should not employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed a stable link-layer address in the IID. This includes recent versions of Windows, iOS, and Android. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Robert Hinden Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document Shepard has followed the process in the working group, done several reviews and provided comments to the authors and w.g. I believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No, N/A (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, all of the authors have confirmed that there is no IPR and full conformance with BCP78 and BCP79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a strong consensus around this document. There has been very active discussion on the mailing list and at 6man face to face sessions. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No appeals have been threatened, nor is there any extreme discontent. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No serious ID nits. The ID nits tool flags some updated RFCs not being cited correctly, but it looks to be bug in the ID nits tool because this document updates many RFCs. Also, one line too long and a missing form feed, not serious. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? The document has a separate Normative and Information reference section. References are characterized correctly. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. N/A (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document will not change the status of any other RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no IANA registries within this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2016-09-29
|
16 | Bob Hinden | Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan |
2016-09-29
|
16 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-09-29
|
16 | Bob Hinden | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-09-29
|
16 | Bob Hinden | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-09-29
|
16 | Bob Hinden | Changed document writeup |
2016-09-28
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | New version approved |
2016-09-28
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt |
2016-09-28
|
16 | Alissa Cooper | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Dave Thaler" , "Alissa Cooper" , "Fernando Gont" , "Shucheng LIU (Will)" , 6man-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-09-28
|
16 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-14
|
15 | Bob Hinden | Notification list changed to "Robert M. Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com> |
2016-09-14
|
15 | Bob Hinden | Document shepherd changed to Robert M. Hinden |
2016-08-22
|
15 | Ole Trøan | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2016-08-20
|
15 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-15.txt |
2016-08-18
|
14 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-14.txt |
2016-07-16
|
13 | Ole Trøan | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-07-08
|
13 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-13.txt |
2016-07-08
|
12 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-12.txt |
2016-04-27
|
11 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt |
2016-02-17
|
10 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-10.txt |
2016-01-25
|
09 | Will LIU | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-09.txt |
2015-10-20
|
08 | Ole Trøan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-10-13
|
08 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-08.txt |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-07.txt |
2015-08-19
|
06 | Will LIU | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-06.txt |
2015-07-06
|
05 | Will LIU | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-05.txt |
2015-06-25
|
04 | Will LIU | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-04.txt |
2015-05-06
|
03 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-03.txt |
2015-01-23
|
02 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-02.txt |
2014-10-08
|
01 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-01.txt |
2014-01-24
|
00 | Fernando Gont | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00.txt |